• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Please read

Comet

Harvey Wallbanger
I thought I'd post this discussion here since I have been having it with a Theology and Philosophy professor who also teaches Theology. Our debate seems to have died off and I wanted more input. Yet, I didn't feel I could attach this to a debate or Pro-God crowd for the simple fact that the conversation turns into an argument. I will post the discussion in parts: different colors are different people speaking in the conversation. *colors did not copy*

Perhaps this will help to see each other’s view better. I tried to use your proof by *forgot name* about “if X then…” and “X is not….” type thing. I will start with what Nate said twice during our conversation (you Aristotelian you!) *keep in mind my shocking comments that I think Aristotle set us back thousands of years*
1.Something cannot come from nothing. (What Nate said, as Aristotle did)
2.Something IS and nothing is not something, therefore nothing is not what something is
3.God is, therefore God is something and not nothing
4.Creation is, therefore creation is something and not nothing
5.God created creation (God is something and creation is something, not nothing)
Options to this are:
A: God created something out of SOMETHING else other than God, so God is not the only something
B: God created out of his self, so all creation is God himself
C: Creation does not exist for something cannot come from nothing
D: Creation exists and created God
E: If 1 is true (as you said) then 2, 3, 4, or 5 must be false
F: 2,3,4, and 5 are true, so #1 is false
 
Last edited:

Comet

Harvey Wallbanger
Here’s an initial response to the argument. Brian and Karen: Don’t hesitate to reply. Questions and comments are welcome. Devastating objections will be considered on a case-by-case basis. =)
The main idea behind this argument seems to be that the Christian doctrine of creation conflicts with the claim that nothing comes from nothing. There’s something plausible about the argument, but I don’t think that what’s plausible about the argument ultimately conflicts with Christian teaching. To see this, note that we can generate an apparent conflict between Christian teaching and the claim that <Nothing comes from nothing> with an even shorter argument. (Brian: I think the following argument faithfully represents your original. I also think it might cut to the heart of the issue more quickly. Please forgive me if I’m wrong about this.) Here’s the argument:

1. If Christian teaching is true, then it is possible that something comes from nothing.
2. It is not possible that something comes from nothing.
C. So, Christian teaching is not true.

The form of the argument is valid, and the premises seem initially plausible. So, it can look like the Christian is in trouble. But the notion of creation out of nothing needs further explication—and this makes things interesting. Christian teaching on creation, as I understand it, implies that God created the physical universe without using any pre-existing material. That is, God caused the physical universe to exist, and did not use any pre-existing material in causing this. But this teaching does *not* imply that something can come from nothing without a cause. So, when Christian teaching is properly understood, it doesn’t really imply that something can come from nothing in the same sense that Aristotle and others construed this claim. In other words, I think Christians will deny (1).
OOPS, I forgot to type option F for you both! Lol…
I did not intend it to be an argument against Christianity per se. Regardless, we are both saying something comes from nothing. A cause is not really what is at issue here, something coming from nothing is. Either: something comes from nothing or nothing comes from nothing. A cause is not relevant for it does not change the argument that nothing comes from nothing. Basically the argument against the original points is: Something comes from nothing if God makes it so since God is. That would seem to imply that God is all and B is the explanation. Regardless of form fitting excuses or explanations, a denial that #1 is true would be implied if indeed “a cause” or God can make something from nothing, MEANING SOMETHING COMES FROM NOTHING! Therefore, option F is the truth… something can come from nothing.

Apologies if it seemed like I was changing the subject here. That wasn’t my intention. I made the distinction between the following two claims because Christians are committed to one, but not committed to the other. Here are the claims:

(i) It is possible that something comes from nothing without a cause.
(ii) It is possible that something comes from nothing if that something has a cause.

In their doctrine of creation, Christians embrace (ii). But they aren’t committed to (i). As far as the main thread goes, Brian is right to note that there’s a sense in which Christians agree that it’s possible for something to come from nothing. I think we’re all clear on that, and it’s a point worth making.

I have very little by way of additional comment. In fact, the only thing I’ll add is that option B—that God created out of himself, so all creation is God himself, is really two claims rolled into one. Christians might endorse the first claim, that God created out of himself. But they’ll deny the second claim—that all creation is God himself. Even if God created “out of himself” in some sense, on the Christian view, what he created is wholly distinct from him. Whatever one thinks about this, it should be noted that the second claim doesn’t follow from the first.

Thank you for addressing the subject at hand… as Yoda said, “Do or do not, there is no try”. Again I should restate that something can come from nothing or it cannot. I see you change the point again with (i) and (ii)… better to the form of the first post/question. I should restate that it matters not the HOW or WHY, just to point out the FACT that it does. I do find this whole conversation humorous given the atheist (Hawking) and theist (Christian here) debate! I do find it a circular argument and irrelevant! Yet, I do love the paradoxical arguments as they do make sense to me! Thus, I get your points. It seems you get mine as well. ALSO: if God is the cause and creates but not of himself then A still holds true in the first argument….

Above I mentioned that the notion of creation out of nothing can make things interesting. Here’s how. The Aristotelian claim regarding creation out of nothing seems to imply that it is not possible for something to come from nothing without a cause. That is, we should read (2) like this:

(2*) It is not possible that something comes from nothing without a cause.

As I mention above, Christians are free to embrace this claim. They think that God created the universe ex nihilo. But they don’t embrace the idea of creation from nothing *without a cause*. Interestingly, atheists who agree with the standard Big Bang model are less free with respect to (2*). Here’s why. The Big Bang model implies that the universe had a beginning. That is, the entire physical system of causes had a beginning in time, and arose literally out of nothing. But what caused this universe to begin to exist? The atheist’s answer can’t be, “some prior physical state”—for according to the model, prior to the Big Bang, there were no such physical states. This appears to lead the atheist (at least if she thinks that all causation is physical causation) to the conclusion that the universe came into existence out of nothing *without a cause*. Many atheists will admit as much. As it turns out, certain atheists have to deny (2*). In short, by my lights, if there’s a worldview in tension with the Aristotelian claim that nothing comes from nothing, it’s a certain kind of atheism.

Stephen Hawkins new book is supposed to address the atheism/Big Bang Theory. I have yet to read it. I can see how a Christian can reconcile the argument by changing the argument or saying that it is not possible unless God does it. I’m sure that is a valid argument to any who believe in God and invalid for an atheist who does not. A cause is a secondary point for either nothing comes from nothing OR something can came from nothing. Conditions do not apply, it either is true or it is not true.
Your argument has changed it the statement to 1. Something comes from nothing but only if my God does it, otherwise nothing will comes from nothing. (again something comes from nothing or it does not)

Please reconcile this with the Christian belief, if indeed they/you hold 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 to be true.
Again I would say that the above is not reconciled to the argument first stated… I see the point, but it falls with the argument and outcomes first stated
 

technomage

Finding my own way
1.Something cannot come from nothing. (What Nate said, as Aristotle did)
...
3.God is, therefore God is something and not nothing
...
5.God created creation (God is something and creation is something, not nothing)

The above are unproven (and unprovable) assumptions. However, I realize you're working on a specific issue in the questions below, using these as assumptions.

Options to this are:
A: God created something out of SOMETHING else other than God, so God is not the only something
B: God created out of his self, so all creation is God himself
C: Creation does not exist for something cannot come from nothing
D: Creation exists and created God
E: If 1 is true (as you said) then 2, 3, 4, or 5 must be false
F: 2,3,4, and 5 are true, so #1 is false

Argument ignores the assertion (common in religion) that God is able to violate the unproven assumption "Something cannot come out of nothing."

Basically, it's a nonsense argument.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Options to this are:
A: God created something out of SOMETHING else other than God, so God is not the only something
B: God created out of his self, so all creation is God himself
C: Creation does not exist for something cannot come from nothing
D: Creation exists and created God
E: If 1 is true (as you said) then 2, 3, 4, or 5 must be false
F: 2,3,4, and 5 are true, so #1 is false

Deep thinking!

How about:-
Both matter and anti-matter are believed to exist.
And so somethingness and nothingness both exist.
God is both the somethingness and the nothingness..... all of it.
God simply became.

BTW, I am a PanDeist. Obviously! :)
 

Comet

Harvey Wallbanger
The above are unproven (and unprovable) assumptions. However, I realize you're working on a specific issue in the questions below, using these as assumptions.



Argument ignores the assertion (common in religion) that God is able to violate the unproven assumption "Something cannot come out of nothing."

Basically, it's a nonsense argument.

Indeed it is, but it is humorous to me and I find it fun in a way. They have given points to me, but not I to them. I am looking for another valid argument to state in their language.
 

Comet

Harvey Wallbanger
Deep thinking!

How about:-
Both matter and anti-matter are believed to exist.
And so somethingness and nothingness both exist.
God is both the somethingness and the nothingness..... all of it.
God simply became.

BTW, I am a PanDeist. Obviously! :)

I am a Monist... I love it! Yet, I argue with a Christian perspective. I do not disagree with your (their) dualistic perspective. I ask how to make another point that the Christian view will (again) concede.... just for fun and understanding between us.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I am a Monist... I love it! Yet, I argue with a Christian perspective. I do not disagree with your (their) dualistic perspective. I ask how to make another point that the Christian view will (again) concede.... just for fun and understanding between us.

I'm going to have to read up on Monism! :)
 

technomage

Finding my own way
Indeed it is, but it is humorous to me and I find it fun in a way. They have given points to me, but not I to them. I am looking for another valid argument to state in their language.

Problem with trying to defeat nonsense arguments is the folks who make a living from them have a lot of experience with them. To use their terminology, you're implicitly accepting at least part of their nonsense. If you're not careful, they'll drag you down to their nonsensical level and beat you with experience. ;)
 

Comet

Harvey Wallbanger
Problem with trying to defeat nonsense arguments is the folks who make a living from them have a lot of experience with them. To use their terminology, you're implicitly accepting at least part of their nonsense. If you're not careful, they'll drag you down to their nonsensical level and beat you with experience. ;)

Ha ha ha.. :clap Indeed that is true of so many. Yet, I have fought against said nonsense since I was at least 5 years old. I have grown older, wiser, and stronger. Thus, I do enjoy the challenge. While I know they will never convert a belief they hold dear (nor do I wish to take it away); I do love to hear them conceded and scramble for another change of venue! :beach:
 

technomage

Finding my own way
Ha ha ha.. :clap Indeed that is true of so many. Yet, I have fought against said nonsense since I was at least 5 years old. I have grown older, wiser, and stronger. Thus, I do enjoy the challenge. While I know they will never convert a belief they hold dear (nor do I wish to take it away); I do love to hear them conceded and scramble for another change of venue! :beach:
Well, if I were in such a situation, I'd start by challenging the unproven assertions they made. The argument builds from the assertions: if the assertions are wrong (or simply insufficiently supported), the rest of the argument does a "fall down go boom!" :)
 

Comet

Harvey Wallbanger
Well, if I were in such a situation, I'd start by challenging the unproven assertions they made. The argument builds from the assertions: if the assertions are wrong (or simply insufficiently supported), the rest of the argument does a "fall down go boom!" :)

I made the initial argument in their language by an agreed upon state of philosophy/science/theology. The if X then and if not X then argument.... they continue to ask for a change of venue.
 

technomage

Finding my own way
I made the initial argument in their language by an agreed upon state of philosophy/science/theology. The if X then and if not X then argument.... they continue to ask for a change of venue.
Problem is, the argument _in and of itself_ is logically consistent--once you assume the initial assumptions, the argument is largely unassailable. But it's based on some VERY shaky assumptions--especially the first ("Something cannot come from nothing.") If I was going to attack the argument, that's where I'd start.

If I were to _defend_ the argument, on the other hand, I would use a two-part argument--first, announce and gain agreement upon the initial assertions, then launch the argument proper.

But at this point, if they're already asking for a chance of format, I'd say you already have them nailed down and they don't want to admit it. ;)
 
Top